state annual action plan (saap) for maharashtra

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

State Annual Action Plan (2015-2016)

2 | P a g e

CONTENTS

1. Minutes of State High Power Steering Committee (SHPSC) Government

2. Checklist - Consolidated State Annual Action Plan of all ULBs.

3. Chapter I: State Annual Action Plan (Questionnaire & Responses)

4. Chapter II: State Scenario

5. Chapter III: State Annual Action Plan

6. List of Annexures

Annexure 1: Tables of Annual Action Plan as per Annexure 2 of AMRUT Guidelines (State & ULB level)

1.1 Breakup of Total MoUD Allocation in AMRUT

1.2.1 Sector Wise Proposed Total Project Fund and Sharing Pattern

1.2.2 Break-up of Total Fund Sharing Pattern

1.3 Use of Funds on Projects: On-going and New

1.4 Plan for Achieving Service Level Benchmarks

3.1 Master Plan of all projects to achieve universal coverage during the current Mission

period based on Table 2.1 (FYs 2105-16 to 2019-20)

3.2 Sector Wise Breakup of Consolidated Investments for each ULB in the State

3.3 ULB Wise Source of Funds for All Sectors

3.4 Year Wise Share of Investments for All Sectors (ULB Wise)

3.5 State level Plan for Achieving Service Level Benchmarks

3.6 State Level Plan of Action for Physical and Financial Progress

4 Plan of Action for Administrative and Other Expenses (A&OE)

5.1 Reforms Type, Steps and Target for AMRUT Cities FY 2015-16




7.2.1 Fund requirement for State level activities

7.2.2 Total fund requirement for Capacity Building

7.2.3 Details of Institutional Capacity Building

3 | P a g e

Government of Maharashtra

Urban Development Department

Minutes of First Meeting of AMRUT State High Power Steering Committee (SHPSC)

The first meeting of SHPSC was held on 19/10/2015 under the chairmanship of Shri

Swadhin Kshatriya, Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra.

The following members were present for the meeting.

1. Mr.Sitaram Kunte - Member

Principal Secretary

Finance Department

2. Dr.Nitin Karir - Member

Principal Secretary

Urban Development Department-I

3. Mr.Vikas Kharge - Member

Secretary

Forest Department

4. Mrs Meeta Rajiv Lochan - Member

Commissioner and Director,

Municipal Administration.

5. Mr Santosh Kumar, - Member

Member Secretary,

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran

Representative of Water Supply

and Sanitation Dept

6. Mrs Mugdha N Dhuri - Member

Deputy Secretary,

Representative for Planning Department

7. Mrs Manisha Patankar-Mhaiskar - Member Convener

Secretary & Misssion Director

Urban Development Department-II

At the outset the Member Convener of the committee,Secretary UDD & State

Mission Director welcomed all the members of the SHPSC. A brief presentation on

the newly launched AMRUT MISSION was made by the Mission Director. The

objectives & gist of the guidelines were presented to the committee. The various

steps involved in completing the process of planning, developing and drafting the

SLIPs(Service Level Improvement Plan) of the 43 Mission cities and aggregating

4 | P a g e

them into the SAAP(State Annual Action Plan) was explained in brief by the

Member Convener.

I) The following was presented before the committee.

1. List of 43 AMRUT Mission Cities

2. Thrust areas under the Mission:

Water Supply

Sewerage facilities and Septage Management,

Storm water drains to reduce flooding,

Urban Transport - pedestrian, non-motorized and public transport

facilities, parking spaces,

Creating and upgrading green spaces, parks and recreation centres,

especially for children.

3. In accordance with the needs and Service Level Gaps in the Mission Cities

the Department has prioritised the sector of Water Supply, for the first year

of the Mission.

4. As per the requirement and gap analysis, Sewerage Facility has been given

the second priority.

5. Funds have been earmarked for the green spaces and activities will be

identified subsequently.

6. Storm water drainage and other sectors will be prioritized for subsequent

years.

7. It is proposed to appoint Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP) the State

owned Technical Authority for Water Supply & Sanitation as Project

Development and Management Consultant during the Mission period.

8. The SLIPS & the SAAP have therefore been developed and prepared with

the assistance of the MJP.

9. It was further informed that since most of the Mission cities lack in

adequate technical staff to handle the Mission activities the Cabinet has

approved appointment of MJP as Project Monitoring Agency which will

provide technical assistance, supervision, & guidance to the Mission Cities

for implementation of projects at Mission city level.

10. The projects would therefore be executed and implemented by an MoU

between Urban Development Department, Mission Cities & MJP.

5 | P a g e

11. The Funding Pattern:

Sr.

No

Population of the

Mission City

GoI Share GoM Share ULB

Share

1 Less Than 10 Lac 50 % 25 % 25 %

2 More than 10 Lac 33.33% 16.67% 50%

Overall GoM share will not be less than 20 % of the SAAP (as per Guideline 7.4).

12. Mobilisation of funds by the ULBs:

a) By Dovetailing funds available under the 14th Finance Commission and other

Grants.

b) Through loans from Financial Institutions, Municipal Bonds, Market

Borrowing etc.

c) Levy of User charges, implementation of Telescopic Tariff etc.

13. SHPSC was informed that DPRs(Detailed Project Report) & Bid documents for

projects under the SAAP will include Operation and Maintenance cost for at

least a period of five years, to be paid to the contractor for the O & M(Operation

and Maintenance ) activities he is supposed to carry out during the period of 5

years. However, for the purpose of allocation of GoI grants, the O&M cost will

be excluded from project cost. The ULBs will fund the O&M through an

appropriate cost recovery mechanism like user charges etc. in order to make

them self-reliant and cost effective.

14. Reforms Action Plan: SHPSC was informed that during the Mission period, 11

Reforms with 54 milestones have to be implemented by the State and Mission

Cities. 10 % of the annual budget allocation for the Mission shall be kept apart

by the Government of India from second year onwards and given to the State as

an incentive for achievement of reforms. At the start of the succeeding financial

year, the Mission will give incentives for reforms achieved in the previous year.

The timelines and agencies responsible for implementation of each reform

which has to be implemented year wise in a period of 4 years are as stated

below:

6 | P a g e

As per the AMRUT guidelines,SLIPs were prepared by each Mission City

after assessing the Service Level Gaps. Detailed deliberations & discussions

with stake holders were held at the city level, including active citizen

participation. The SLIPs prepared by the ULBs were finalized during a 2 days

handholding workshop held in the month of August, 2015 when GoI

representatives were also present.

15. Based on the SLIPs and the AMRUT guidelines, city wise projects have been

prioritized and these have been aggregated into the “State Annual Action Plan”

Sr

No

Reforms Concerned

Departments

Present Status Implementation

timeline

1 E-Governance Mission Cities Partially

accomplished

18 months

2 Constitution and

professionalization

of Municipal Cadre

UDD Partially

accomplished

24 months

3 Augmenting Double

Entry Accounting

Mission Cities Partially

accomplished

12 months

4 Urban planning and

City Level Plans

UDD &

Mission Cities

Partially

accomplished

6 to 48 months

5 Devolution of Funds

Functions

UDD Partially

accomplished

6 to 18 months

6 Review of Building

by-laws

UDD &

Mission Cities

In progress 12 to 36

months

7 Set-up Financial

Intermediary at State

level

UDD Accomplished

------

8(a) Municipal Tax and

Fees Improvement

Mission Cities In progress 12 months

8

(b)

Improvement in levy

and collection of user

charges

Mission Cities In progress 12 months

9 Credit Rating Mission Cities In progress 18 months

10 Energy and Water

audit

Mission Cities In progress 12 to 24

months

11. Swachh Bharat

Mission

UDD &

Mission Cities

In progress Within given

time frame

7 | P a g e

(SAAP) during a 3 days workshop attended by all the Mission City officials,

Dir. MoUD, consultants of MoUD on 16th ,18

th & 19

th September 2015.

16. The SAAP proposed for first year of the Mission i.e. 2015-16 amounts to

Rs.2077.96 crore.

17. The SAAP was submitted before the SHPSC.

II) After detailed deliberations followings decisions were taken:

a) The State Annual Action Plan (SAAP) for 2015-16 at a total cost of Rs

2077.96 crore has been approved.

b) It was decided that as per prioritization following projects for the water

supply sector along with component of Solar System as a smart solution, and

also one Sewerage Sector project in accordance with the directions of

Hon. High Court should be taken up in the first year of the Mission:

(Rs in Crore)

Sr.

No

Division Name of ULB Cost of Project

Submitted by

ULBs

Project Cost

Identified For

AMRUT

Project Cost

Identified for First

Year 2015-16

1 Nagpur 1 Wardha 42.3 35.3 35.3

2 Hinganghat 58.8 58.8 58.8

3 Nagpur 223 223 223

4 Chandrapur 292 200 100

Total 616.1 517.1 417.1

2 Amravati 5 Amravati 421 85 85

6 Akola 200.68 159.88 91.88

7 Achalpur 15.15 14.85 14.85

8 Yavatmal 355 55 55

Total 991.83 314.73 246.73

3 Aurangabad 9 Latur 783 60 60

10 Omanabad 64.4 45.37 45.37

11 Udgir 128.95 126.6 126.6

Total 976.35 231.97 231.97

4 Nashik 12 Malegaon 78 49.75 49.75

13 Jalgaon 408 219 124.35

14 Ahmednagar 394 250 149

Total 880 518.75 323.1

5 Pune 15 Pimpri Chinchwad 1000 270 120

16 Solapur 695 66.9 66.9

17 Satara 59 5 5

8 | P a g e

Total 1754 341.9 191.9

6 konkan 18 Vasai Virar 1495 130 130

19 Ambarnath 53 53 13.64

20 Badlapur 67 67 33.11

21 Panvel 153 50.5 50.5

Total 1768 300.5 227.25

Solar Panel Projects 143.76 143.76

Total 6986.28 2368.71 1781.81

Sewerage Scheme Identified for AMRUT Mission SAAP 20015-16 (Rs in Crore)

Sr.

No

Division Name of ULB Project Submitted

by ULB

Project Identified

For AMRUT

Project Identified for

First Year 2015-16

1 Konkan 1 Ulhasnagar

Municipal

Corporation ( As

directed by Hon'ble

High Court )

400 400 223.10

Green Spaces and Park 42 42

Total 2046.91

A&OE expenses 31.05 31.05

Total 2077.96

d) It was decided that the following resolutions should be passed by the ULBs:

1. Raise funds for ULB share through various resources.

2. Cost of O&M shall be borne by the ULBs through metered bills,

telescopic tariff and other appropriate user charges.

3. Completion of reforms as per prescribed timelines.

4. Legal action with regard to malpractice related to Non Revenue Water

issue.

5. MoU with MJP / State for implementation of water supply and sewerage

projects.

e) Secretary UDD and State Mission Director has been authorised to submit SAAP

to MoUD, for further consideration & approval.

f) The Secretary UDD and State Mission Director has been further authorized to

negotiate & settle the terms & conditions with MJP who has been identified to

work as PDMC for implementation of activities during the Mission period.

g) In accordance with AMRUT Guidelines,State Mission Director has been

authorised to deploy experts in the State Mission Management Unit and also at

9 | P a g e

10 | P a g e

Checklist- Consolidated State Annual Action Plan

Checklist- Consolidated State Annual Action Plan of all ULBS to be sent for Assessment

by MoUD (As per Table 6.2)

Sr.

No.

Point of Consideration Yes/No Give Details

1 Have All cities prepared SLIP as

per suggested approach

Yes The SLIPs for the 43 Mission cities have been

formulated in accordance with the Guidelines

given by MoUD. All the Mission cities and

also the State has prioritised the sector of

Water Supply for Universal Coverage in the

first year of the Mission.

2 Has the SAAP prioritized proposed

investment across cities

Yes The State has prioritised proposed investment

across cities based on the basis of existing

Service Level Benchmarks in Water Supply

and the financial status of the Mission Cities.

3 Is the indicator wise summary of

improvement proposed (both

investments and management

improvements) by state in place?

Yes Indicator wise summary of improvement

proposed for investment and management is

in place.

4 Have all the cities under Mission

identified/done baseline

assessments of service coverage

indicators?

Yes The Mission Cities have identified and carried

out the Base Line Assessment of service

coverage indicators.

5 Are SAAP addressing an approach

towards Meeting Service Level

Benchmarks agreed by Ministry for

each sector?

Yes SAAP has been drafted on the basis of the

service level benchmarks as agreed by

Ministry.

6 Is the Investment proposed

commensurate to the level of

improvement envisaged in the

indicator?

Yes Investment proposed is commensurate with

service level improvement as envisaged in the

said indicator.

7 Are State share and ULB share in

line with proposed Mission

approach?

Yes State & ULB share is in line with the

proposed Mission approach.

8 Is there a need for additional

resources and have state considered

raising additional resources (state

programs, aided projects, additional

devolution to cities, 14th

Financial

Commission, external sources)?

Yes Required efforts will be made to mobilize

additional resources through 14th

Finance

Commission and other state programmes or

other resources as and when required.

9 Does State Annual Action Plan

verify that the cities have

undertaken financial projections to

identify revenue requirements for

O& M and repayments?

Yes SAAP verifies that cities have undertaken &

identified revenue requirements for

repayment of O&M.

11 | P a g e

10 Has the state Annual Action Plan

considered the resource

mobilization Capacity of each ULB

to ensure that ULB share can be

mobilized?

Yes SAAP has considered the resource

mobilization capacity & financial status of

ULBs. Additional resource if needed will be

mobilised through user charges and through

various financial institutions by the ULBs

themselves.

11 Has the process of establishment of

PDMC been initiated?

Yes Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran a state

owned authority is the PDMC under the

Mission.

12 Has a roadmap been prepared to

realize the resource potential of

ULB?

Yes The resource potential of each ULB has been

taken into account while preparing the SAAP

and road map is being prepared.

13 Is the implementation plan for

Projects and reforms in

place(Timeline and yearly

Milestone)

Yes The implementation plan for projects &

Reforms is in place. All the reforms will be

implemented in the timeline given in the

SAAP.

14 Has the Prioritization of project of

ULBs been done in accordance

with Para 7. 2 of the Guidelines?

Yes Prioritization of projects has been done taking

into account the gap in service levels in

accordance with paragraph 7. 2 of the

guidelines. Accordingly the water supply

projects have been taken up in the first year.

12 | P a g e

Chapter I

STATE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (SAAP) (Questionnaire & Responses)

Introduction: Project funds to ULBs will be provided through the States on the basis of proposals

submitted in State Annual Action Plan (SAAP). SAAP is basically a State Level Sector

Annual Plan indicating the year-wise improvements in Water-Supply and other

components. Under the AMRUT MISSION the basic building block for the SAAP is

the SLIPs prepared by the ULBs. At the State level, the SLIPs of all Mission cities

have been aggregated into the SAAP. While preparing SAAP information, responses to

following questions, in words has been indicated against each question:

Has the State Government diagnosed service level gaps?

Yes. The State Govt. has diagnosed the service level gaps ULB-wise and sector-wise.

While doing so the ULBs have considered the Census 2011 data, the baseline survey

data by the MoUD, the sector-wise reports, plans, drawings and other information

available with the ULBs, reconciled the same and freezed the Baseline (present state)

service levels. After comparing with the Service Level Benchmarks of MoUD for

different sectors like water supply and sanitation, the service level gaps were assessed.

The service levels were prioritized in terms of universal coverage of household

connections which is a national priority and other key indicators in respect of water

supply and sewerage / sanitation. The service level gaps in coverage of water supply

were diagnosed in terms of the contributing factors like gaps related to house

connections from the existing network, gaps in availability of distribution network /

service storage / pumping stations / water treatment plant capacity / source. The towns

have also been prioritized based on the level of gaps in universal coverage of water

supply and sewerage in consultation with public representatives like MPs, Mayors /

Chairpersons etc . Similarly, in sanitation / sewerage, the gap in coverage of toilets and

sewerage network services was considered as the highest priority for which the

contributing factors were analysed like gap in issue of house connections, gap in sewer

network etc. so as to address the potential gaps to cater to the population in 2021.

Extensive public consultations have been conducted by the ULBs involving all

13 | P a g e

stakeholders like citizens, public representatives etc.

Has the State planned for and financed capital expenditure?

Yes. The capital expenditure of the projects will be met by the Mission cities

themselves so that they are owning the project. Further gaps if any will be funded from

various financial institutions and other resources as per requirement. Efforts have been

made to dovetail various funding sources and converge various schemes and sectors to

achieve objective of universal coverage for water supply in the 1st year of the Mission.

Under AMRUT Mission, the State Govt. has decided to meet more than 20% of the

project cost, as its share. The ULBs are expected to meet the remaining share from their

own resources. The ULBs will be generating revenue through appropriate user charges

by improving billing and collection systems, legalising the illegal connections,

implementing telescopic tariff and through public mobilization and awareness

campaigns. The ULBs will also be mobilizing finances through HUDCO, Municipal

Bonds, other financing institutions after obtaining credit rating from accredited

institutions like ICRA / CRISIL etc. The O&M cost will also be met by the ULBs

through user charges and other resources.

Has the State moved towards achievement of universal coverage in water supply

and Sewerage/Septage?

The State has assessed the gaps in universal coverage in both Water Supply and

Sewerage/Septage sectors on the basis of information submitted by Mission Cities in

their SLIPs. The funds available under ongoing/Pipeline Schemes/ projects sponsored

by GOI/GOM/& the ULB themselves have also been considered and the gap has been

worked out after ensuring the requirement by converging with all such schemes.The

State with concerted efforts is moving towards achievement of universal coverage in

water supply and hence has prioritised water supply sector for the first year of the

Mission. The service levels gaps in AMRUT are assessed considering the outputs and

outcomes of the existing and on-going projects in water supply and sewerage. Gaps in

Sewerage & Septage sector has also been assessed. The projects have therefore been

drafted based on these service level gaps. Based on the priority of the ULBs & the state

14 | P a g e

the sewerage / Septage sector will be taken up in the 2nd

year of Mission.

What is the expected level of the financial support from the Central Government

and how well have State/ULB and other sources of finance been identified and

accessed?

As per the Mission guidelines GOI will be providing 50% assistance for the Mission

cities having population upto10 lacs and 1/3rd

assistance for Mission cities having

population above 10 lacs. The remaining amount will be made available by the State

Govt & respective ULBs. As per the Mission Guidelines the State will be contributing

more than 20 % share of the project cost. The ULB share will be put in by the ULB

from their own funds, or through funds accrued through user charges, 14th Finance

Commission Grants, Municipal Bonds, HUDCO/External Funding and through

mobilization of additional revenue sources.

How fairly and equitably have the needs of the ULBs been given due

consideration?

The SLIPs have been prepared by the respective Mission cities taking into account the

gaps in their service delivery & their needs after following a due consultative process

at the city level. The needs of ULBs have been prioritised based on their Service Level

bench marks & gaps therein. The SLIPs have been drafted after due participation &

involvement of the citizens deliberating on their priorities. The SAAP has been

prepared after due consultations with Mission Cities & taking into account the service

delivery gaps & priorities. Accordingly water supply sector has been prioritised for the

1st year. During this entire exercise there has also been active participation of GOI

Officials & Consultants in the drafting of the SLIPs & SAAP.

Have adequate consultations with all stakeholders been done, including citizens,

local MPs and other public representatives?

The SLIPs have been prepared by the Mission Cities after due consultation &

deliberation with all the stakeholders in the city, including the citizens & the others. A

two day handholding workshop was organized with active participation of MoUD

officials and the Mission cities in August, 2015 in Mumbai wherein need assessment,

prioritization of needs, had been defined based on service level benchmarks & gaps.

15 | P a g e

SLIPs formation etc. were discussed in detail. City Managers i.e. the Commissioners

/Chief Officers have had adequate consultations with the stake holders at the respective

city level on various occasions, before & after this exercise.

Important steps followed for preparation of SAAP are mentioned below.

1. Principles of Prioritization

During SLIP preparation, the ULBs have identified the projects based on service

level benchmarks & gap analysis in respective sector of Water Supply &

Sewerage & Septage etc.

After due consultative process, projects have been prioritized to achieve

universal coverage of water supply in the 1st year.

As per the thrust areas Sewerage system & Septage will be taken up in the 2nd

year.

The State has prioritised the Water Supply and Sewerage system as the first &

second year priority for the Mission.

Accordingly based on gap analysis in Water Supply and financial strength of

ULBs, those Mission cities having higher gaps in water supply have been

identified for the first year of the Mission. While prioritizing projects, universal

coverage of water supply for the first year and sewerage for the second year has

been given top priority.

In the towns, where Water Supply Level and coverage of water connections is

low.Priority has been given to water supply projects. The prioritization of ULBs

for funding has been done after consultation with various stake holder’s viz

citizens, people’s representatives etc.

Information in response to the following questions, has been indicated against

each question:

Has consultation with local MPs/ MLAs, Mayors and Commissioners of the

concerned ULBs been carried out prior to allocation of funding? Please give

details.

Mission cities have held consultations, meetings, discussions & deliberations at

the Mission city level with their local MPs/MLAs, Mayors/Presidents and also

16 | P a g e

citizens prior to demarcation of funds for the Mission. The allocation of funds

has been done based on a consultative process. The AMRUT guidelines covering

the purpose and objectives, the local priorities, components eligible for funding,

criteria for prioritization of projects and towns for funding, out of box initiatives,

smart solutions, alternatives, the related reforms framework and capacity

building both at institutional and individual level have been considered. This has

further culminated in the prioritization of the SLIP proposals of the respective

ULBs which was further consolidated at the State Level into SAAP. Water

supply sector in the first year, Sewerage & Septage in the second year &

remaining in the further Mission period thereby inclusive exercise aimed at

achieving the common priority of ensuring universal coverage of water and

enhancing the amenity value of cities by making available public transfer

facilities, developing green zones and children-friendly parks, thereby aiming at

improving the quality of life for all. The projects have been accordingly

prioritized and the SAAP is finalized considering those towns with the least

coverage of water supply and with low per capita supply. Accordingly, the

financial allocations to towns and to sectors have been made in the SAAP.

Has financially weaker ULBs given priority for financing? If yes, how?

Priority has been given based on ULB requirement relating to Service Delivery

Gaps in water supply & also the financial capacity of the ULB. The state

government will be providing its share to the extent of 25 percent of the project

cost for ULBs having population less than 10 lakh. While remaining share will

be made available by the ULBs themselves from their own funds.

Has the ULB with a high proportion of urban poor received higher share?

If yes, how?

ULBs having higher gaps in Water supply and with a high proportion of Urban

poor have been given priority.

Has the potential Smart cities been given preference? Please give details.

Mission cities have been prioritised based on the service level bench marks, the

17 | P a g e

gap assessments and requirement of project. Wherever possible the potential

smart cities will be given priority as per the gap in their Service Level Bench

marks & requirement.

How many times projects are proposed in SAAP of the Central Assistance

(CA) allocated to the State during 2015-16?

As per the AMRUT guidelines, the State has proposed projects, three (3) times

the size of the Central Assistance allocated in the financial year 2015-16 in the

SAAP.

Has the allocation to different ULBs within State is consistent with the

urban profile of the state? How?

Yes. The State has made allocations to different ULBs within the State in

consistence with the urban profile of the State. Further, various financial options,

convergence with various schemes wherever possible has been proposed.

2. Importance of O&M

It is generally observed that minimal attention is paid by the implementation

agencies to the operation and maintenance of assets created under various

projects. This tendency on the part of implementing agencies leads to sheer loss

of national assets. Information, in words, has been indicated against each

question regarding importance given to O&M;

a. In view of the importance of effective Operation & Maintenance (O&M) of

the infrastructure under through the AMRUT Mission and also for ensuring

sustainability of the infrastructure created, responsibility of the O&M will

rest solely with the ULBs after the contract period of the 5 years. This will

ensure supply of good quality infrastructure by the agency and ensure its

upkeep during the contract period.

b. The following are the responses to the various issues involved in addressing

effective O & M:

Has Projects being proposed in the SAAP includes O & M for at least five

years?

Yes. O&M arrangements for all the projects proposed in the SAAP have been

18 | P a g e

proposed for 5 years period wherever and this arrangement shall be an integral part

of the original contract. This arrangement will incentivise the contracting agency to

construct good quality infrastructure or supply good quality of equipment which

will last for its design life with reduced maintenance or repairs. After the contract

period the responsibility of O&M will be with the ULB.

How O&M expenditures are proposed to be funded by ULBs/ Parastatal?

How? (250 words)

The expenditure towards O&M arrangements after the contract period are

proposed to be funded through the user charges, legalisation of illegal connections,

implementation of telescopic tariff and also through revenues sources. The ULB

will also be required to enhance its coverage and connection network and thus

enhance its revenue base, and strengthen the billing and collection systems. In

addition, rationalization of user charges will also be contemplated by the ULB.

Expenditure reduction through energy conservation will also be adopted as an

alternative strategy for revenue improvement by way of smart solutions viz. the

solar system

Is it by way of levy of user charges or other revenue streams? Please give

details.

The O & M expenditure is proposed to be funded by the ULBs by way of user

charges legalisation of illegal connections, implementation of telescopic tariff and

also through revenues sources. Wherever required and as per local needs user

charges would be increased. If required funds would also be raised through other

resources, & financial institutions.

Has O&M cost been excluded from project cost for the purpose of funding?

O&M cost has been excluded from the project cost for the purpose of funding.

However it will be included in the bid document. O & M cost is proposed to be

borne by ULB through user charges & other resources.

What kind of model has been proposed by States/ULBs to fund the O&M?

Please discuss.

After due consultation with the ULBs it has been decided to recover O&M cost by

19 | P a g e

ULBs through imposing user charges or increasing the same as per needs.

However in case user charges are found to be insufficient O & M cost will also be

recovered through reuse of treated waste, reduction in NRW etc. If need arises the

same will also be funded through the ULBs own resources. Cost-centric approach /

model is proposed to be adopted for water supply (and sewerage / Septage

management) sector, duly opening separate account for effective planning of the

sectors, ensure proper accounting of revenue and expenditure, O&M etc. for

improved asset management and effective service delivery to the citizens. For

water supply assets created, the contract will envisage O&M cost for a period of 5

years. The cost of O&M will be reimbursed by the ULB by levying user charges,

recycling of raw water where feasible, and from other initiatives like reduction of

NRW, energy conservation and efficiency improvement measures & other revenue

generation resources. In case of child / elderly friendly parks and green spaces,

RWAs (Residents Welfare Associations) or NGOs are proposed to be involved in

their maintenance and upkeep, putting their own resources, if necessary

supplemented by ULB’s revenues. Financial and / or institutional support from

Corporate (Corporate Social Responsibility funds) / NGOs will also be solicited to

ensure sustainable O&M of these amenities.

Is it through an appropriate cost recovery mechanism in order to make them

self-reliant and cost-effective? How?

The aforesaid mechanism has been devised to make the ULBs self-reliant and

make the project cost effective, the objective being to make the project’s cost

effective and sustainable. An appropriate O&M cost recovery mechanism adopting

a cost-centric approach in order to have effective control over the revenues and

expenditures on each sector, and accordingly adopting appropriate strategies to

meet the O&M costs through user charges, effective billing and collection, tariff

rationalization, use of ICT, smart metering and reconciling with electricity bills,

Property Tax assessments to eliminate / reduce unauthorized connections and save

costs through energy conservation and efficiency improvement in pumping stations

and other electrical installations. Effective asset management strategies will also be

evolved to generate revenues from the land assets possessed by the ULBs in the

20 | P a g e

water works premises by enhancing the amenity values by utilizing the surplus

space for green space development, child friendly parks etc.

Financing of Projects

Financing is an important element of the SAAP. Each state has been given the

maximum share which will be given by the Central Government. Information

responding to the following questions regarding financing of the projects proposed

under AMRUT has been, indicated against each question:

How the residual financing (over and above Central Government

share) is shared between the States, ULBs?

As per the Mission guidelines GoI is providing 50% assistance for the Mission cities

having population up to 10 lacs and 1/3 assistance for Mission cities having

population above 10 lacs. The State Government will be contributing 25% and

16.67% respectively (aggregate above 20% of project cost)and remaining share will

be contributed by ULBs from its own resources. If need arises the ULBs will also be

arranging funds from financial institutions & other resources like 14th Finance

Commission funds etc.

Has any other sources identified by the State/ULB (e.g. PPP, market

borrowing)? Please discuss.

The State will explore all possible alternative funding options, market borrowing

through Municipal Bonds, Infrastructure Bonds etc. Details will be worked out in

due course, considering the financial status of the respective ULB& as per

requirement.

What is the State contribution to the SAAP? (it should not be less than 20

percent of the total project cost, Para 7.4 of AMRUT Guidelines)

State will contribute more than 20 percent share to the SAAP as per Guidelines of

the Mission.

Whether complete project cost is linked with revenue sources in SAAP?

How?

Project cost has been linked with revenue sources in the SAAP. In case there is a

further funding gap the same shall be arranged by the ULBs through their own

21 | P a g e

resources or funding/loan through financial institutions etc.

Has projects been dovetailed with other sectoral and financial

programme of the Centre and State Governments?

Projects have been dovetailed with the various GOI/GOM ongoing/sanctioned

projects: viz. the JNNURM, UIDSSMT, UIG, Smart Cities, State sponsored

Schemes etc.

Is state planning to create a Financial Intermediary, in order to pool

funds from all sources and release funds to ULBs in time? Please provide

details.

The state already has a State owned financial limited company viz.

MUIDCL(Maharashtra Urban Infrastructure Developing Company Ltd.) in place.

The said company has been assisting the ULBs by providing loan & grants, for

completing various schemes & projects. This intermediary, will be assisting the

Mission Cities if additional financial need arises.

Has States/UTs explored the possibility of using Public Private

Partnerships (PPP), as a preferred execution model? Please discuss.

Wherever required as per needs, PPP model could be explored.

Are PPP options included appropriate Service Level Agreements (SLAs)

which may lead to the People Public Private Partnership (PPPP) model? How?

Wherever required as per needs, PPPP model will be explored.

22 | P a g e

Chapter II MAHARASHTRA

Urban Scenario

State of Maharashtra is one of the most urbanised State in the country. Migration from rural to

urban is at an accelerated pace and it is therefore imperative that basic infrastructure facilities are

provided to the Mission cities.

District wise Map of State:

U

r

b

a

n

Population scenario:

Population of Maharashtra as per 2011 census is 11.53 crores out of which 5.08 crore live in the

Urban areas. The urban population in the last decade has increased up to 45.22 percent of total

population of the State.

Revenue Divisions

The state has a total of 265 ULBs & is administratively divided into 6 revenue divisions.

23 | P a g e

Mission Cities:

A total of 43 Cities have been selected under AMRUT Mission as shown below

Table 1 Mission Cities- Division wise

Sr. No. Division District Mission City

1. Kokan 1. Mumbai 1. Mumbai

2. Thane

2. Thane

3. Kalyan Dombivali

4. Ulhasnagar

5. Mira-Bhayander

6. Bhiwandi-Nijampur

7. Ambernath

8. Kulgaon-Badalapur

3. Palghar 9. Vasai-Virar

4. Raigad 10. Navi-Mumbai

11. Panvel

2. Pune 5. Pune 12. Pune

13. Pimpari-Chinchwad

6. Satara 14. Satara

24 | P a g e

7. Sangli 15. Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad

8. Kolhapur 16. Kolhapur

17. Ichalkaranji

9. Solapur 18. Solapur

19. Barshi

3. Nashik 10. Nashik 20. Nashik

21. Malegaon

11. Dhule 22. Dhule

12. Jalgaon 23. Jalgaon

24. Bhusaval

13. Nandurbar 25. Nandurbar

14. Ahmednagar 26. Ahmednagar

4. Aurangabad 15. Aurangabad 27. Aurangabad

16. Jalna 28. Jalna

17. Parbhani 29. Parbhani

18. Beed 30. Beed

19. Osmanabad 31. Osmanabad

20. Latur 32. Latur

33. Udgir

21. Nanded 34. Nanded

5. Amravati 22. Amravati 35. Amravati

36. Achalpur-Paratvada

23. Akola 37. Akola

24. Yavatmal 38. Yavatmal

6. Nagpur 25. Nagpur 39. Nagpur

26. Wardha 40. Wardha

41. Hinganghat

27. Chandrapur 42. Chandrapur

28. Gondia 43. Gondia

Population Range of Mission Cities

Sr. No. Population Range No. of Cities

1. More than 10 lakh 10

2. More than 5 lakh but less than 10 lakh 08



Total 43

25 | P a g e

Population scenario of Mission Cities

124.7

8

31.2

4

24.0

6

18.4

1

17.2

8

14.8

6

12.4

7

12.2

2

11.7

5

11.1

9

9.5

2

8.0

9

7.1

0

6.4

7

5.5

0

5.4

9

5.0

6

5.0

3

4.8

1

4.6

0

4.2

6

3.8

3

3.7

6

3.5

1

3.2

0

3.0

7

2.8

7

2.8

6

2.5

3

1.8

7

1.8

0

1.7

4

1.4

7

1.3

3

1.2

0

1.1

9

1.1

7

1.1

2

1.1

2

1.1

1

1.0

6

1.0

4

1.0

2

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00 G

reate

r M

um

bai

Pune

Nag

pur

Thane

Pim

pri C

hin

chw

ad

Nashik

Kaly

anD

om

biv

li

Vasai V

irar

Aura

ng

ab

ad

Navi M

um

bai

So

lap

ur

MiraB

hayand

ar

Bhiw

and

i

Am

ravati

Nand

ed

Ko

lhap

ur

Ulh

asnag

ar

Sang

li

Male

gao

n

Jalg

ao

n

Ako

la

Latu

r

Dhule

Ahm

ed

nag

ar

Chand

rap

ur

Parb

hani

Ichalk

ara

nji

Jaln

a

Am

bern

ath

Bhusaw

al

Panvel

Kulg

ao

n

Beed

Go

nd

ia

Sata

ra

Bars

hi

Yavatm

al

Achalp

ur

Osm

anab

ad

Nand

urb

ar

Ward

ha

Ud

gir

Hin

gang

hat

26 | P a g e

CHAPTER III

STATE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

Introduction

AMRUT is a structured Mission for improvement of urban infrastructure with an

explicit goal of attaining the service level bench marks in key sectors of water

supply, sewerage and Septage, storm water and drainage, urban transport, green

spaces and parks, reforms management and support and lastly capacity building.

AMRUT as a Mission devolves the decision making power

to the State Government, which in turn devolves it to the

Urban Local Bodies. Therefore, the decision making power

has truly been passed on to the ULBs for formulating the

projects, which according to them are deemed to be of

immediate priority and relevance.

Vision Under AMRUT

• Water supply coverage to be improved from 74.86% to 87.23% (state level

average of AMRUT cities)

• Per capita supply to increase from 111 liters per day to 127 liters per day

SAAP Preparation Process

SAAP

SLIP

Step - I

•Preparation of Service Level Improvement Plan by ULBs with stakeholder/Citizen consultation

•20th August & 21st

August 2015

Step - II

•Preparation of State Annual Action Plan with compilation of SLIP data

•16th – 19th September 2015 and in presence of MoUD consultants

Step - III

•SHPSC chaired by Chief Secretary reviewed and recommended for approval in meeting held on dated 19.10.2015

27 | P a g e

At the ULB level, SLIPs are prepared for the proposed Projects in each

sector. These have been consolidated at the state level in the form of State Annual

Action Plan (SAAP). Hence the SLIP documents constitute the building blocks of

the SAAP document, which reflect in totality the State Level Service Improvement

Plan in various sectors over the Mission period.

3.1 Consolidation of the SLIP Statements

The SLIP statements have been submitted by the Mission cities for each of the key

sectors mentioned in 4.1 through tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 as

given in the ‘Mission Statement and Guidelines’ document of MoUD. Relevant

information is extracted from the SLIP statements and compiled in a suitable

format for further analysis at the State Government level.

3.2 Prioritization of Sectors

The following are admissible thrust sectors for funding under AMRUT:

3.2.1 Water supply

3.2.2 Sewerage and Septage management

3.2.3 Storm water drains

3.2.4 Transportation focusing on pedestrians, non-motorized and public transport

facilities and parking spaces

3.2.5 Creation of green / open spaces and others

As per para 6.6 of the ‘Mission Statement and Guidelines’ document of MoUD,

state has given the first priority to the Water Supply Sector in the 1st year.

Subsequently the second priority has been accorded to the Sewerage and Septage

sector. Depending upon the availability of funds and the extent of gaps, they may

be covered simultaneously or in a piecemeal fashion, with water supply sector

given precedence over the sewerage sector. If the gap is large, the projects may be

phased over five years, corresponding to the Mission duration. In case of

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, one of the Mission cities, Sewerage & Septage

Project has been proposed pursuant to the directives given by the Hon. High Court.

After attaining universal coverage in the water supply and sewerage sectors, the

Mission Cities will prioritize the remaining three sectors in an unconstrained

manner keeping in view their priorities based on gap analysis.

28 | P a g e

3.3 Proposed Sectoral Strategy

The sectorial strategy adopted by the Government of Maharashtra is in tune with

the recommendation of the ‘Mission Statement and Guidelines’ document of

MoUD. Hence, in accordance with Service Level benchmarks first priority has

been accorded to the Water supply sector followed by the Sewerage and Septage

sector. The proposed sectoral prioritization strategy is as follows:

Priority

No

Sector

1. Water Supply

2. Sewerage and Septage Management

3. Storm water drains spaces

4. Transportation focusing on pedestrians, Urban

transport facilities and parking spaces, side- walks,

foot over bridges

non-

motorized

Transport

5. Creation of green / open spaces

3.4 Service Adequacy

3.4.1 Water Supply:

a) Service level indicators in water supply

Sr.no. Indicators MOUD Benchmark

1 Coverage of water supply connections 100 %

2 per capita supply of water 135 LPCD

3 Extent of metering of water connection 100 %

4 Extent of non- revenue water 20 %

5 Quality of water supplied 100%`

6 Cost recovery in water supply service 100%

7 Efficiency in collection of water supply related charges 90%

In view of the above service level water supply parameters, as per the guidelines of

MoUD, the status of coverage of water connections of Mission cities is shown below.

Similarly, rate of water supply is shown below

29 | P a g e

Figure 1 Coverage of Water Connections

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

JALNACHANDRAPUR

AKOLA CORPSOLAPUR CORP

YAVATMAL

MALEGAON

UDGIR

BHIWANDI-NIZAMPUR CORP

HINGANGHAT

WARDHA

ACHALPUR PARATWADA

BARSHI

OSMANABAD

JALGAON

LATUR CORP

BHUSAVAL

BEED

DHULE

AMBARNATH

AMRAVATI CORPICHALKARANJIVASAI VIRAR CORPMIRA-BHAYANDER CORPNANDURBAR

PARBHANI

NAGPUR CORP

ULHASNAGAR CORP

PIMPRI-CHICHWAD CORP

KOLHAPUR CORP.

SATARA

PANVEL

NANDED

NASIK CORP

KALYAN DOMBIVLI CORP

BADLAPUR

AHMEDNAGAR

AURANGABAD CORP

PUNE CORP

GONDIA

SANGLI-MIRAJ CORP

THANE CORPNAVI-MUMBAI CORP

MUMBAI

0

50

100

150

200

250

CHANDRAPURUDGIR

JALGAONLATUR CORP

NANDURBAR

SOLAPUR CORP

HINGANGHAT

WARDHA

PARBHANI

OSMANABAD

AMBARNATH

AKOLA CORP

ACHALPUR PARATWADA

PANVEL

NAGPUR CORP

YAVATMAL


BHUSAVAL

BEED

ICHALKARANJIVASAI VIRAR CORPAHMEDNAGARMIRA-BHAYANDER CORPMALEGAON

JALNA

AMRAVATI CORP

DHULE

ULHASNAGAR CORP

BADLAPUR

BARSHI

KOLHAPUR CORP.

SATARA

NANDED

AURANGABAD CORP

GONDIA

SANGLI-MIRAJ CORP


PIMPRI-CHICHWAD CORP

NASIK CORP

THANE CORP

MUMBAIPUNE CORP

NAVI-MUMBAI CORP

Figure 2 Rate of Water Supply

30 | P a g e

Summary of Water Supply Service Level Assessment

• 75.56% coverage (average of 43 cities) at State Level

• >90% Coverage - 14 cities (8 cities having 100% coverage)

• <> 90% & 70% Coverage – 16 Cities

• <70% - 13 cities

• 29 cities (out of 43 cities) supplying less than 135 litres per capita water

Only one city (NMMC) confirms to the SLB for NRW

CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN SAAP of Current Financial Year

Water Supply Sector:

o Low coverage of Household Connections

o Low Levels of LPCD

o High Levels of Non-Revenue Water

3.5 Prioritization of projects in Water Supply Sector

In the water supply sector the proposals for attainment of universal coverage have

been submitted by all the Mission cities. The Government of Maharashtra has

adopted the following prioritization strategies in the water supply sector:

i. First priority has been given to those cities, whose coverage of water

connections is low.

ii. Similarly priority has also been given to those cities, whose rate of water

supply (LPCD) is low.

iii. Non-revenue water (NRW) being a key parameter in arriving at rate of water

supply at consumers end, is also taken into account while selection of cities

under SAAP. The cities, whose non-revenue water is quite high are included so

as to improve rate of supply to the consumers.

iv. Cities, whose service levels are in accordance with Service Level benchmark

of MoUD are not included in SAAP of the year 2015-2016.

v. Issues such as availability of water at source, current status of ongoing

projects, their likely date of completion and outcome of these projects vis–a-

vis the Service Level Benchmarks have been considered while inclusion of

cities in the SAAP for the year 2015-16

31 | P a g e

Improvement in service levels of water after Mission Implementation

3.6 Service Adequacy

3.6.1 Sewerage Sector:

Service level indicators in sewerage

Sr.no. Indicators MOUD Benchmark

1 Coverage of latrines 100 %

2 Coverage of sewerage network 100%

3 Efficiency of collection of sewerage 100 %

4 Efficiency in treatment & adequacy of sewage

treatment capacity

100

80

100

75

50

70

87

34

46

73

48

70

5748

90

50

68

58

98

59

70

90

100

100

100

10085

93

75

75

100

70

80100

75

100

100

100

100

100

100

70

100

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

32 | P a g e

Figure 1 Coverage of Latrines

There is a gap in the coverage of latrines and sewer network services in most of the Mission

cities. However, coverage of water sector being the first priority for the State only one

project of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has been included as per Hon’ble High Court

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NAVI-MUMBAI CORP.KOLHAPUR CORP.

NASIK CORPKALYAN DOMBIVLI CORP

VASAI VIRAR CORP

WARDHA

PUNE CORP

PIMPRI CHINCHVAD CORP

NAGPUR CORP

MIRA-BHAYANDER CORP


NANDED

BADLAPUR

PANVEL

BHUSAVAL

SOLAPUR CORP

LATUR CORP

SANGLI-MIRAJ CORP

DHULE

ACHALPUR PARATWADAULHASNAGAR CORPAMBARNATHICHALKARANJITHANE CORP

MUMBAI

GONDIA

PARBHANI

AHMEDNAGAR

JALGAON

UDGIR

YAVATMAL

AMRAVATI CORP

BARSHI

MALEGAON

NANDURBAR

CHANDRAPUR

AKOLA CORP

OSMANABAD

AURANGABAD CORP

SATARA

JALNAHINGANGHAT

BEED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PANVELNAVI-MUMBAI CORP.

MIRA-BHAYANDER CORPPUNE CORP

NAGPUR CORP

PIMPRI CHINCHVAD CORP

NASIK CORP

NANDED

MUMBAI

AURANGABAD CORP


KOLHAPUR CORP.

ICHALKARANJI

SOLAPUR CORP

THANE CORP

SANGLI-MIRAJ CORP

ULHASNAGAR CORP

AMBARNATH

AMRAVATI CORP

BHIWANDI-NIZAMPUR CORPMALEGAONAHMEDNAGARDHULEBARSHI

GONDIA

SATARA

BADLAPUR

VASAI VIRAR CORP

YAVATMAL

PARBHANI

BHUSAVAL

BEED

ACHALPUR PARATWADA

AKOLA CORP

LATUR CORP

WARDHA

HINGANGHAT

NANDURBAR

OSMANABAD

JALGAON

UDGIRJALNA

CHANDRAPUR

Figure 2 Coverage of sewerage network

33 | P a g e

Order

3.7 Smart Solution: Solar Power Generation Projects

Solar power generation projects have been proposed to reduce the energy costs

and thereby further reduce the O& M cost thereby schemes making self

sustainable

The component of Solar System at a total cost of Rs 143.76 Crore has been

proposed as a Smart Solution for reducing O &M cost.

3.8 State Annual Action Plan 2015-16

3.9 Budgetary Requirement FY 2015-16

The budget requirement of the Mission cities which have been included in the

SAAP for the current financial year for the sectors of water supply, one project of

sewerage, development of Green Spaces and inclusion of solar power project as

smart solution and A & OE is to tune of Rs-2077.96 crores.

3.10 Allocation of Funds

The total budget allocated by the MoUD in the first year under AMRUT to the

State of Maharashtra is Rs. 2037.83 crores.

1638.05 223.10 42.00 31.05

2077.96

143.76

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

Water Supply Sewerage Green & Open

Spaces

A&OE Expenses Total

Investment (Rs. Crore) Solar (Rs. Crore)

34 | P a g e

3.11 Convergence of schemes/ projects

In accordance with the AMRUT guidelines, convergence of various

schemes/projects under GoI/ GoM will be taken up in the Mission cities.

3.12 14th

Finance Commission

Directives have already been issued by the state to the ULB for utilization of

funds under 14th FC for activities under Mission.

265

43

10

33

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Swachh Bharat Mission

AMRUT Smart Cities Mission Maharashtra Suwarna Jayanti

Nagarotthan Maha

Abhiyan

35 | P a g e

Table 1.1: Abstract - Break up of total MoUD Allocation in AMRUT

NAME OF STATE -MAHARASHTRA

FY-2015-16

(Amount Rs.Crore)

Total Central Funds allocated to State

Allocation of Central Funds for A & OE (@8% of total given in column 1)

Allocation of funds for AMRUT (Central Share)

Multiply col. 3by x 3 for AMRUT on col.4 (project proposal to be three- times the annual allocation - CA)

Add equal (Col.4) State / ULB share

Total AMRUT Annual size (Cols.2+4+5)

1 2 3 4 5 6

365.51 31.05 334.46 1003.39 1003.39 2037.83

36 | P a g e

Table 1.2.1: Abstract - Sector Wise Proposed Project Fund and sharing Pattern NAME OF STATE : MAHARASHTRA FY - 2015-2016 Rs. In Cr.

Sr. No.

Sector No. of Projects

Centre State ULB Converagence Others Total

1 Water Supply 21 +11 Solar

812.06 406.05 563.70 0 0 1781.81

2 Sewerage and Septage Management

1

111.55 55.78 55.78 0 0 223.10

3 Drainage 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00

4 Urban Transport 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00

5 Others 42

21.00 10.50 10.50 0 0 42.00

6 Grand Total 75

944.61 472.33 629.98 0 0 2046.91

A and OE expenses

31.05

2077.96

37 | P a g e

Table 1.2.2: Abstract - Break-up of Total Fund Sharing Pattern NAME OF STATE : MAHARASHTRA

FY - 2015-2016 Rs. In Cr. Sr. No.

Sector No. of Projects

Centre STATE ULB Convergence

Others Total

14th FC

OTHERS

TOTAL 14th FC

OTHERS TOTAL

1 Water Supply

21 +11 Solar

812.06 * 406.05 406.05 * 563.70 563.70 0 0 1781.81

2 Sewerage and Septage Management

1 111.55 * 55.78 55.78 * 55.78 55.78 0 0 223.10

3 Drainage

0 0.00 * 0.00 0.00 * 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00

4 Urban Transport

0 0.00 * 0.00 0.00 * 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00

5 Others

42 21.00 * 10.50 10.50 * 10.50 10.50 0 0 42.00

6 Grand Total

75 944.61 * 472.33

472.33 * 629.98 629.98 0 0 2046.91

A and OE expenses

31.05

2077.96

38 | P a g e

Total Project

Investment

Sr. No. Sector Centre Centre Centre

14th FC OTHERS TOTAL 14th FC OTHERS TOTAL 14th FC OTHERS TOTAL 14th FC OTHERS TOTAL 14th

FCOTHERS TOTAL

14th

FCOTHERS TOTAL

1 Water Supply 1781.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243.62 121.81 121.81 169.11 169.11 568.43 284.24 284.24 394.59 394.59

2

Sewerage and

Septage

Management

223.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.47 16.73 16.73 16.73 16.73 78.09 39.04 39.04 39.04 39.04

3 Drainage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 Urban Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 Others 42.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 14.70 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35

6 Grand Total 2046.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283.39 0 141.69325 141.69 0 188.99325 188.99325 661.2 0 330.63335 330.63335 0 440.98425 440.98425

614.073 1432.837

944.6 472.3266 629.9775

YEARWISE TOTAL

TOTAL SHARE

Balance carry forward for next financial years

STATE ULB

NAME OF STATE : MAHARASHTRA FY - 2015-2016

STATE ULB

Committed Expenditure (if any) from previous year Proposed Spending during current financial year

STATE ULB

Table 1.3: Abstract - Use of Funds on Projects :On Going and New

39 | P a g e

Table 3.1: SAAP – Master Plan of all projects details to achieve universal coverage during the Current Mission period based

on Table 2.1 (FYs 2015-16 )

NAME OF STATE: MAHARASHTRA FY - 2015-2016

Sr. No. Name of ULB (water supply and Sewerage) Total number of projects to

achieve universal coverage

Estimated Cost

IN Cr.

Number of years to achieve universal

coverage

1 JALNA 0 0.00 0

2 UDGIR 1 126.60 3

3 JALGAON CORP 1 124.35 3

4 OSMANABAD 1 45.37 2

5 NANDURBAR 0 0.00 0

6 WARDHA 1 35.30 3

7 HINGANGHAT 1 58.80 2

8 LATUR CORP 1 60.00 2

9 SOLAPUR CORP 1 66.90 2

10 ACHALPUR PARATWADA 1 14.85 2

11 AKOLA CORP 1 91.88 2

12 AHMEDNAGAR CORP 1 149.00 3

13 MALEGAON CORP 1 49.75 2

14 PARBHANI CORP 0 0.00 0

15 BHUSAVAL 0 0.00 0

16 ICHALKARANJI 0 0.00 0

17 YAVATMAL 1 55.00 3

18 BEED 0 0.00 0

19 BHIWANDI CORP 0 0.00 0

20 MIRA-BHAYANDER CORP (SEW) 0 0.00 0

21 AMRAVATI CORP 1 85.00 3

22 NANDED CORP 0 0.00 0

23 VASAI VIRAR CORP 1 130.00 3

24 AMBARNATH 1 13.64 2

40 | P a g e

Sr. No. Name of ULB (water supply and sewerage) Total number of projects to

achieve universal coverage

Estimated Cost

IN Cr.

Number of years to achieve universal

coverage

25 BADLAPUR 1 33.11 2

26 BARSHI 0 0.00 0

27 DHULE CORP 0 0.00 0

28 ULHASNAGAR CORP (sew) 1 223.10 4

29 PCMC CORP 1 120.00 3

30 SATARA 1 5.00 2

31 PANVEL 1 50.50 2

32 KALYAN DOMBIVLI CORP 0 0.00 0

33 CHANDRAPUR CORP 1 100.00 3

34 AURANGABAD CORP 0 0.00 0

35 NASIK CORP 0 0.00 0

36 THANE CORP 0 0.00 0

37 NAVI-MUMBAI 0 0.00 0

38 KOLHAPUR CORP 0 0.00 0

39 PUNE CORP 0 0.00 0

40 NAGPUR CORP 1 223.00 3

41 GONDIA 0 0.00 0

42 SANGLI-MIRAJ CORP 0 0.00 0

43 MUMBAI CORP 0 0.00 0

SOLAR PANEL PROJECTS 11 143.76 2

33 2004.91

41 | P a g e

Table 3.2: SAAP - Sector Wise Breakup of Consolidated Investments for all ULBs in the State

2015-2016

Rs, in Cr.

SR NO Name of ULB (water supply and sewerage) Water

Supply

Sewerage and

Septage

Management

Drainage Urban

Transport

Others Reforms

Incentive at

12.5 %

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 JALNA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

2 UDGIR 126.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 127.60

3 JALGAON 219.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 220.00

4 OSMANABAD 45.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 46.37

5 NANDURBAR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

6 WARDHA 35.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 36.30

7 HINGANGHAT 58.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 59.80

8 LATUR CORP 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 61.00

9 SOLAPUR CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

10 ACHALPUR PARATWADA 14.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 15.85

11 AKOLA CORP 159.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 160.88

12 AHMEDNAGAR 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 251.00

13 MALEGAON 49.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 50.75

14 PARBHANI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

15 BHUSAVAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

16 ICHALKARANJI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

17 YAVATMAL 55.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 56.00

18 BEED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

19 BHIWANDI CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

20 MIRA-BHAYANDER CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

21 AMRAVATI CORP 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 86.00

22 NANDED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

42 | P a g e

23 VASAI VIRAR CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

24 AMBARNATH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

25 BADLAPUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

26 BARSHI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

27 DHULE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

28 ULHASNAGAR CORP 0.00 223.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 224.10

29 PCMC CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

30 SATARA 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.00

31 PANVEL 50.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 51.50

32 KALYAN DOMBIVLI CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

33 CHANDRAPUR 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 201.00

34 AURANGABAD CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

35 NASIK CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

36 THANE CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

37 NAVI-MUMBAI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

38 KOLHAPUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

39 PUNE CORP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

40 NAGPUR CORP 223.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 224.00

41 GONDIA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

43 MUMBAI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SOLAR PANEL ROJECTS 143.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143.76

1781.81 223.10 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 2046.91

Total Project Investments for 43 cities 2046.91

A&OE at 8 % 31.05

Grand Total 2077.96

43 | P a g e

Centre Centre Centre

FOR CITY POP<10 LAKHS 15% 7.50% 7.50% 35% 17.50% 17.50%

FOR CITY POP>10 LAKHS 10% 5% 15% 23.33% 11.67% 35%

A WATER SUPPLY 14th FC OTHERS TOTAL 14th FC OTHERS TOTAL 14th FC OTHERSTOTA

L 14th FC

OTHER

STOTAL 14th FC

OTHER

STOTAL

14th

FC

OTHER

STOTAL

1CHANDRAPUR 100.00 15.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 35.00 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50

2AKOLA CORP 91.88 13.78 6.89 6.89 6.89 6.89 32.16 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08

3SOLAPUR CORP 66.90 10.04 5.02 5.02 5.02 5.02 23.42 11.71 11.71 11.71 11.71

4YAVATMAL 55.00 8.25 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 19.25 9.63 9.63 9.63 9.63

5UDGIR 126.60 18.99 9.50 9.50 9.50 9.50 44.31 22.16 22.16 22.16 22.16

6MALEGAON 49.75 7.46 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 17.41 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71

7HINGANGHAT

58.808.82 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.41 20.58 10.29 10.29 10.29 10.29

8WARDHA

35.305.30 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 12.36 6.18 6.18 6.18 6.18

9ACHALPUR PARATWADA

14.852.23 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 5.20 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60

10OSMANABAD

45.376.81 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 15.88 7.94 7.94 7.94 7.94

11LATUR CORP

60.009.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 21.00 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50

12JALGAON

124.3518.65 9.33 9.33 9.33 9.33 43.52 21.76 21.76 21.76 21.76

13AMBARNATH

13.642.05 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 4.77 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39

14AMRAVATI CORP

85.0012.75 6.38 6.38 6.38 6.38 29.75 14.88 14.88 14.88 14.88

15VASAI-VIRAR

130.0013.00 6.50 6.50 19.50 19.50 30.33 15.17 15.17 45.50 45.50

16NAGPUR

223.0022.30 11.15 11.15 33.45 33.45 52.03 26.02 26.02 78.05 78.05

17PIMPRI-CHINCHWAD

120.0012.00 6.00 6.00 18.00 18.00 28.00 14.00 14.00 42.00 42.00

18SATARA

5.000.75 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.75 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88

19PANVEL

50.507.58 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 17.68 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84

20BADLAPUR

33.114.97 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 11.59 5.79 5.79 5.79 5.79

21AHMEDNAGAR

149.0022.35 11.18 11.18 11.18 11.18 52.15 26.08 26.08 26.08 26.08

22SOLAR PANEL PROJECT

143.7621.56 10.78 10.78 10.78 10.78 50.32 25.16 25.16 25.16 25.16

1781.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 243.62 0.00 121.81 121.81 0.00 169.11 169.11 568.43 0.00 284.24 284.24 0.00 394.59 394.59

B SEWERAGE PROJECTS

ULHASNAGAR SEWERAGE 223.10 33.47 16.73 16.73 16.73 16.73 78.09 39.04 39.04 39.04 39.04

C GREEN PARKS AND SPACES 42.00 6.30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 14.70 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35

GRAND TOTAL 2046.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 283.39 0.00 141.69 141.69 0.00 188.99 188.99 661.22 0.00 330.63 330.63 0.00 440.98 440.98

Table 3.4: SAAP_Year wise Share of Investments for All Sectors (ULB Wise )NAME OF STATE : MAHARASHTRA FY - 2015-2016

SR NO Name of CityTotal Project

Investment

Committed Expenditure (if any) from previous year Proposed Spending during current financial year Balance carry forward for next financial years

STATE ULB STATE ULB STATE ULB

44 | P a g e

FY FY FY

H1 H2 2018 2019 2020

Rs 2368.71

CRORE

(Rs

1781.81CRORE

FOR 2015-2016)

Household level

coverage of direct

water supply

connections

67.66 % of

21 Towns

3 10 19.34

Per capita quantum

of water supplied

94.80 LPCD

for 21

Towns

3 15 22.2

Quality of water

supplied

Rs 400CRORE

(Rs 223.10

CRORE FOR

2015-16)

Coverage of latrines

(individual or

community)

80% of

one town

Coverage of

sewerage network

services

35% of

one town0 10 15

Efficiency of

Collection of

Sewerage

Efficiency in

treatment

0

Coverage of storm

water drainage

network

0

Service coverage of

urban transport in

the city

Availability of urban

transport per 1000

population

42

Annual Targets(Increment from the Baseline Value)

FY 2016 FY 2017

0

Table 3.5: SAAP – State level Plan for Achieving Service Level BenchmarksProposed

Priority

Projects

Total Project Cost Indicator Baseline

WATER SUPPLY

OTHERS (GREEN SPACE ,PARKS INNOVATIVE PROJECTS AND LAKE CONSERVATION)

0.00 0.00

SEWERAGE AND SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT

DRAINAGE

URBAN TRANSPORT

45 | P a g e

TABLE 3.6 : SAAP - STATE LEVEL PLAN OF ACTION FOR PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS

SR. NO.

NAME OF CITY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

BASELINE (as on date

xx)

MISSION TARGET

FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-2016

FOR HALF YEAR 1 FOR HALF YEAR 2

PHYSICAL PROGRESS TO BE ACHIEVED

FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED

PHYSICAL PROGRESS TO BE ACHIEVED

FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED

1 CHANDRAPUR House hold level coverage of water supply connection

34 75 30 30.00

Per capita quantum of water supply

48 90

2 AKOLA House hold level coverage of water supply connection

46 75 30 27.56

Percapita quantum of water supply

90 120

3 Solapur House hold level coverage of water supply connection

48 70 30 20.07


80 110

4 YAVATMAL House hold level coverage of water supply connection

48 75 30 16.50


100 115

5 UDGIR House hold level coverage of water supply connection

50 100 20 25.32

46 | P a g e


50 135

6 MALEGAON House hold level coverage of water supply connection

50 100 30 14.63


93 135

7 HINGANGHAT House hold level coverage of water supply connection

57 100 30 17.64


80 135

8 WARDHA House hold level coverage of water supply connection

58 100 30 10.59


80 135

9 ACHALPUR PARATWADA

House hold level coverage of water supply connection

59 100 30 4.46


90 135

10 OSMANABAD House hold level coverage of water supply connection

68 100 30 13.61


70 100

11 LATUR CORPORATION


70 80 30 18.00

47 | P a g e


80 90

12 JALGAON House hold level coverage of water supply connection

70 85 30 37.31


88 95

13 AMBARNATH House hold level coverage of water supply connection

70 85 30 4.09


88 94

14 AMRAVATI CORPORATION


73 100 30 25.50


108 135

15 VASAI-VIRAR House hold level coverage of water supply connection

75 100 30 39.00


100 100

16 NAGPUR House hold level coverage of water supply connection

80 100 30 66.90


97 135

17 PIMPRI-CHINCHWAD


87 93 30 36.00

48 | P a g e


142 135

18 SATARA House hold level coverage of water supply connection

90 100 30 1.50


135 135

19 PANVEL House hold level coverage of water supply connection

90 100 30 15.15


96 135

20 BADLAPUR House hold level coverage of water supply connection

98 100 30 9.93


130 130

21 AHMEDNAGAR House hold level coverage of water supply connection

100 100 30 44.70


100 120

20 ULHASNAGAR (SEWERAGE)

COVERAGE OF LATRINES IN %

80 80 20 44.62

COVERAGE OF SEWERAGE NETWORK IN %

35 70

21 SOLAR PANEL PROJECTS

COVERAGE OF LATRINES IN %

30 100.00

Total 623.08

49 | P a g e

Plan of Administrativeand other Expenses 4. Plan of action for administrative and other expenses (A&OE)

S.No Item proposed for A&OE

Total Allocation

Committed Expenditure

from previous year

(if any)

Proposed spending for

Current Financial year

Balance to Carry Forward

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

1 Prepartion of SLIP and SAAP

2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

2 PDMC including DPR Preparation

180 10 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5

3 Procuring Third Party Independent Review and Monitoring Agency

10 0.75 2.31 2.31 2.31 2.31

4 Publication (e-Newsletter, guidelines, brochures, etc.)

2 0.15 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

5 Capacity Building and Traning - CCBP, if applicable -Others

80 10 18.50 18.50 18.50 18.50

6 Reforms implementation

80 6 18.50 18.50 18.50 18.50

7 Others 45.50 3.65 10.38 10.38 10.77 10.70

Total 400 31.05 92.14 92.14 92.53 92.53

50 | P a g e

Plan Of Action for Reform Implementation

Table No. Content

5.1 Reforms Types, Steps and Targets for AMRUT Cities FY 2015-16




5.5 Self-Evaluation for Reporting Progress on Reforms Implementation

51 | P a g e

5.1 SAAP - Reforms Type, Steps and Target for AMRUT Cities FY 2015-2016

S.No Type Steps Implementation Timeline

Target to be set by states in SAAP

April to Sep, 2015

Oct 2015 to Mar, 2016

1 E-Governance Digital ULBS ----

1. Creation of ULB website 6 months yes

2. Publication of e- newsletter, Digital India Initiatives.

6 months

yes ----

3. Support Digital India (during to be done on PPP mode by the ULB itself).

6 months yes -----

2 Constitution and professionalization of municipal cadre

1. Policy for engagement of interns in ULBs and implementation.

12 months ----- yes

3 Augmenting double entry accounting

1. Complete migration to double entry accounting system and obtaining an audit certificate to the effect from FY 2012-2013 onwards.

12 months ----

yes

yes

2. Publication of annual financial statement on website.

Every Year -----

4 Urban Planning and City

Development Plans

1. Preparation of Services level Improvement Plans (SLIP), State Annual Action Plans (SAAP).

6 months yes -----

---- 2. Make aciton plan to progressively increase Green cover in cities to 15% in 5 years.

6 months yes

yes 3. Develop at least one children park every year in the AMRUT cities

Every Year ----

4. Establish a system for maintaining of parks, playground and recreational areas relying on People Public Private Partnership (PPPP) model

12 months

------ yes

52 | P a g e

5 Devolution of funds and functions

1. Ensure transfer of 14th FC devolution to ULBs.

6 months Yes -----

2. Appointment of State Finance Commission (SFC) and making decisions.

12 months ----- yes

yes 3. Transfer of all 18 function of ULBs.

12 months -----

6 Reviews of Building by-laws

1. Revisoin of building bye laws periodically.

12 months ------ yes

3. Create single window clearance for all approvals to give building permissions.

12 months ------- yes

7(a) Municipal tax and fees improvement

1. At least 90% coverage 12 months yes

2. At least 90% collection 3. Make a policy to, periodically revise property tax, levy charges and other fees.

-----

4. Post Demand Collection Book (DCB) of tax details on the website.

5. Achieve full potential of making a policy for destination specific potential having dynamic pricing module.

7(b) Improvement in levy and collection

of user charges

1. Adopt a policy on user charges for individual and institutional rate is charged for water use and adequate safeguards are included to take care of the interests of the vulnerable.

12 months ------ yes

2. Make action plan to reduce water losses to less than 20% and publish on the website.

------

3. Separate accounts for user charges.

-----

4. Atleast 90% billings. ------ 5. Atleast 90% collection. ----- 8 Energy and Water

audit

1. Energy (Street lights) and Water Audit (including non-revenue water or losses audit). 2. Making STPs and WTPs energy efficient 3. Optimize energy consumption in street lights by using energy efficient lights and increasing reliance on renewable energy.

12 months ----- yes

-------

53 | P a g e

Table 5.2 SAAP Reforms Type, Steps and Target for AMRUT CITIES Financial year 2016-2017



April to Sep, 2015

Oct 2015

to Mar, 2016

April to Sep, 2016

Oct, 2016 to Mar 2017

1 E-Governance 1. Coverage with E-MAAS ( from the date of hosting the software

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

*Registration of Birth, Death And Marriage

*Water & Sewerage Charges

*Grivance Redressal

*Property Tax

*Advertisement tax

*Issuance of Licenses

*Building Permissions

*Mutations

*Payroll

*Pension and e-procument

2 Constitution and professionalization of municipal

cadre

1. Establisment of municipal cadre

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

2. Cadre linked training

3 Augmenting double entry accounting

1. Appointment of internal auditor

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

4 Urban Planinng and City

Development Plans

1. Make a State Level policy for implementing the parameters given in the National Mission for Sustainable Habitat.

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

5 Devolution of funds and functions

1. Implementation of SFC recommendations within timeline

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

54 | P a g e

6 Review of Building by-laws

1. State to formulate a policy and action plan for having a solar roof top in all building having an area greater than 500 square meters and all public buildings.

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

2. State to formulate a policy and action plan for having Rainwater harvesting structures in all commercial, public building and new buildings on plot of 300 sq. meters and above.

7 Set-up financial intermediary at

state level

1. Establisment and operationalize financial intermediary - pool finance, access external funds, float municipal bonds.

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

8 Credit Rating 1. Complete the credits ratings of the ULBs.

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

9 Energy and Water audit

1. Give incentives for green buildings ( e.g. rebate in property tax or charges conneted to building permission/development charges).

24 months ------- ----- ------ YES

55 | P a g e

Table 5.3 SAAP –Reforms Type step s and Targets for AMRUT CITIES FY 2017-2018

S.No

Type Steps Implementation Timeline


April to Sep, 2015

Oct 2015 to Mar, 2016

April to

Sep, 201

6

Oct, 2016 to Mar 201

7

April to

Sep, 201

7

Oct 2017, to Mar 2018

1 E-Govenance 1. Personal Staff management. 36 months ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- Yes

2 Urban Planing and

City Developmen

t Plans

2. Project management 36 months ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- Yes

1. Establish Urban Development Authorities.

3 Swachh Bharat Mission

1. Elimination of Open defecation. 36 months ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- Yes

2. Wastes Collection (100%),

3. Transportation of Waste (100%).

4. Scientific Disposal (100%).

5. The State will prepare a Policy for Right-sizing the number of municipal functionaries depending on, say, population of the ULB, generation of internal resources and expenditure on salaries.

56 | P a g e

Table 5.4 SAAP –Reforms Type step s and Targets for AMRUT CITIES FY 2018-2019



April to Sep, 2015

Oct 2015 to

Mar, 2016

April to Sep, 2016

Oct, 2016 to

Mar 2017

April to Sep, 2017

Oct 2017, to

Mar 2018

April to Sep, 2018

Oct, 2018 to

Mar, 2019

1 Urban Planning and City Development Plans

1. Preparation of Master Plan using GIS

48 months ----- ----- ------ ------ ------

------ ------ yes

57 | P a g e

Table 7.2.1 Fund requirement for Individual Capacity Building at ULB level

S.No Name of the ULB Total numbers to be trained in the current FY department wise Name of the training

institution indentified

Number of training

programmes to be

conducted

Funds required

in current FY

Elected Representative

Finance Dept.

Engineering Dept.

Town Planing Dept.

Administration Dept.

Total

1 KOLHAPUR 81 40 40 30 60 251 GOVT. AUTHORIZED INSTTUTE

2150000

2 ULHASNAGAR 83 30 30 30 30 203

3 PUNE 156 60 461 20 4260 4957 16949598

4 NANDED 86 27 78 17 148 356

5 NAGPUR 150 80 260 30 60 580 3620000

6 MALEGAON 80 9 8 6 95 198 1000000

7 BHUSAWAL 47 4 6 2 4 63 1448000

8 JALGAON 74 20 20 20 14 148 1118040

9 NANDURBAR 37 2 4 5 4 52 594440

10 SATARA 39 7 6 5 7 64

11 PIMPRI CHINCHWAD 132 60 120 120 120 552

12 AMRAVATI 92 22 29 22 65 230 1060000

13 AHMEDNAGAR 68 6 12 5 281 372

14 ICHALKARANJI 62 14 17 7 19 119

15 PANVEL 253 6 516 30 805

16 KALYAN DOMBIVLI 127 109 143 31 109 392

17 AMBERNATH 62 5 100 5 10 92 2500000

1629 501 1850 355 5316 9434 30440078

58 | P a g e

7.2.2 Fund requirement for state level activities (Amount Rs.Crores)

S.No State level activity Cumulative funds released upto current FY

Total expenditure

upto current Fy

Unspent funds available from earlier

release

Funds required for the current FY

1 RPMC 0 0 0 0.70

2 UMC 0 0 0 0.30

3 Other (e.g. workshops, seminar, etc), which are

approved by NIUA

0 0 0 3.00

4 Institutional 0 0 0 6.00

Total 0 0 0 10.00

59 | P a g e

7.2.3 Total fund requirement for Capacity Building S.No Funds requirement Individual Institutional RPMC and UMC Others Total

1 Total release start of Mission (2015) 0 0 0 0 0

2 Total utilized - Centre share 0 0 0 0 0

3 Balance available - Centre share 0 0 0 0 0

4 Amount required - Centren share 2 7 1 0 10

5 Total funds required for capacity building in current FY

2 7 1 0 10

60 | P a g e

Form 7.2.4 Details of Institutional Capacity Building

A) Is the State willing to revise their town planning laws and rules to

include land polling ?

Ans: Yes, This is presently in process.

B) List of ULBs willing to have a credit rating done as the first step to issued

bonds?

Ans: Some of Mission cities have already done their credit rating and

remaining cities will get the credit rating done.

C) Is the State willing to integrate all work done in GIS in order to make GIS

useful for decision making in ULBs?

Ans: yes

D) Is the State willing to take assistance for using land as a fiscal tool in

ULBs?

Ans : Assistance will be welcome.

E) Does the State require assistance to professionalize the municipal cadre?


F) Does the State require assistance to reduce non- revenue water in ULBs?


G) Does the State require assistance to improve property tax assessment

and collection in ULBs?


H) Does the State require assistance to establish a financial intermediary?

Ans : No.

I) Any other capacity assistance to implement the AMRUT Reform Agenda

as set out in these Guidelines ?


------------------

61 | P a g e

62 | P a g e

state annual action plan (saap) for maharashtra

Documents